Remember when in Objectivist Epistemology Rand dismissed Wittgenstein's entire philosophy (which was directly related to and the most prominent counter-argument against exactly what she was asserting) by saying that it was a "perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus"--?

That seems very similar to what you're doing here. Being and Time seems like one of the most important points at which philosophy has dismantled the CTMU kind of present-at-hand ontology. It would actually be interesting to see you engage with it and how your philosophy would rebut or agree with it.

Remember when in Objectivist Epistemology Rand dismissed Wittgenstein's entire philosophy (which was directly related to and the most prominent counter-argument against exactly what she was asserting) by saying that it was a "perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus"--?

That seems very similar to what you're doing here. Being and Time seems like one of the most important points at which philosophy has dismantled the CTMU kind of present-at-hand ontology. It would actually be interesting to see you engage with it and how your philosophy would rebut or agree with it.

I was actually referring to his obscure writing style, not his ideas, but I can see how that would be confusing.

Remember when in Objectivist Epistemology Rand dismissed Wittgenstein's entire philosophy (which was directly related to and the most prominent counter-argument against exactly what she was asserting) by saying that it was a "perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus"--?

That seems very similar to what you're doing here. Being and Time seems like one of the most important points at which philosophy has dismantled the CTMU kind of present-at-hand ontology. It would actually be interesting to see you engage with it and how your philosophy would rebut or agree with it.

I was actually referring to his obscure writing style, not his ideas, but I can see how that would be confusing.

Remember when in Objectivist Epistemology Rand dismissed Wittgenstein's entire philosophy (which was directly related to and the most prominent counter-argument against exactly what she was asserting) by saying that it was a "perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus"--?

That seems very similar to what you're doing here. Being and Time seems like one of the most important points at which philosophy has dismantled the CTMU kind of present-at-hand ontology. It would actually be interesting to see you engage with it and how your philosophy would rebut or agree with it.

I was actually referring to his obscure writing style, not his ideas, but I can see how that would be confusing.

Remember when in Objectivist Epistemology Rand dismissed Wittgenstein's entire philosophy (which was directly related to and the most prominent counter-argument against exactly what she was asserting) by saying that it was a "perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus"--?

That seems very similar to what you're doing here. Being and Time seems like one of the most important points at which philosophy has dismantled the CTMU kind of present-at-hand ontology. It would actually be interesting to see you engage with it and how your philosophy would rebut or agree with it.

I was actually referring to his obscure writing style, not his ideas, but I can see how that would be confusing.

Remember when in Objectivist Epistemology Rand dismissed Wittgenstein's entire philosophy (which was directly related to and the most prominent counter-argument against exactly what she was asserting) by saying that it was a "perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus"--?

That seems very similar to what you're doing here. Being and Time seems like one of the most important points at which philosophy has dismantled the CTMU kind of present-at-hand ontology. It would actually be interesting to see you engage with it and how your philosophy would rebut or agree with it.

I was actually referring to his obscure writing style, not his ideas, but I can see how that would be confusing.